G22

CELL SAFETY / EXTERNAL DEVICE

An external guard interface needs a controlled boundary—not an “EUROMAP ready” label.

Freeze the exact machine, external safety device, protected scope, interface document and configuration, signal responsibilities, qualified validation ownership and configured FAT/SAT evidence before cell release.

ANSWER FIRST

Release the interface without turning it into a safety claim.

EUROMAP 78 or 78.1 can identify a machine-to-external-device interface structure. The quote must still identify both endpoints, the final protected boundary, other equipment, the responsible risk and validation owners and the evidence for the configured installation.

Carry this boundary into the complete interface register

External-interface release gate

Exact machine, external device and protected scope
Controlled document, version and configuration
Separate robot and auxiliary responsibilities
Qualified risk and validation ownership
Configured FAT, SAT and as-built evidence

Carry the fixed context into the RFQ

FOUR SEPARATE BOUNDARIES

Do not let one interface inherit the whole cell decision.

Machine safeguards, the external device, other machines and the final destination each retain their own owner and evidence.

Scope ownership and evidence that remains separate
Boundary	Record and owner	Do not assume
Injection molding machine safeguards	The identified machine configuration, its built-in guards, safety controls, instructions and manufacturer-controlled evidence	Do not treat an external fence or interface plug as proof that the machine's own safeguarding scope is complete.
External safety device	The identified external guard, door or other protective device and its machine-facing interface, locking state where applicable and configured evidence	This page owns the procurement register for that interface; it does not design the device or select the safety architecture.
Robot or other machine	Safety-signal exchange between separately identified machines, plus their non-safety coordination interfaces	EUROMAP 81 and the robot/peripheral interface record remain separate from the external-device interface described by EUROMAP 78 or 78.1.
Final integrated cell and destination	The final layout, access conditions, intended use, risk assessment, integration, validation, legal route and site procedures	A released interface record can support this work but cannot replace it or establish conformity, certification or safe operation.

RFQ / INTERFACE REGISTER

Fourteen fields turn an interface label into reviewable evidence.

Preserve open decisions and exact revisions. Do not fill missing safety facts with a generic connector, value or sequence.

External safety-device RFQ fields and requested evidence
Register field	Record for the proposed cell	Evidence to request
Machine identity and revision	Exact machine and clamping configuration, serial identity when assigned, safety-control and software revisions, installed options and controlled drawings	Supplier configuration baseline and revision-controlled electrical, guarding and interface records
Supply and safeguarding boundary	Built-in machine guards, external guards/devices, robot, auxiliaries, control panels, site work and every explicit exclusion	Scope drawing and responsibility matrix approved by the machine, device, integration and buyer owners
Cell layout and access assessment	Final equipment positions, protected areas, access points and the project facts used by the responsible risk-assessment team	Controlled layout and the responsible party's assessment status; this page does not decide the safeguarding result
External safety-device identity	Device ID, location, type, supplier, model/revision and locking or non-locking state where applicable	Device data, instructions, drawings and project-specific selection record from the responsible owner
Interface document and status	Exact recommendation/specification, version, applicable subtype or another controlled project document, plus the owner who selected it	Current official document and a written project decision; never reduce this field to 'EUROMAP ready'
Acknowledgement and presence decision	Project determination for whole-body access, presence detection and acknowledgement architecture, including unresolved assumptions	Qualified risk-assessment and machine/integrator decision record; no universal choice is supplied by this checklist
Connector and physical interface	Machine and device mating sides, connector identity, cable, location, pinout, labeling and configuration revision	Controlled interface drawing and as-built inspection record for both identified endpoints
Safety-function and signal map	One row per intended function or signal, with source, direction, normal/fault meaning and affected equipment	Approved functional specification, circuit record and qualified validation reference; a pin match alone is insufficient
Machine-state and access semantics	Declared meanings for device closed, locked or acknowledged where applicable, machine safe condition and access release	Manufacturer- and integrator-controlled state description tied to the configured machine and external device
Reset, restart and abnormal behavior	Declared behavior after device opening, signal loss, power loss, emergency stop, reset request, acknowledgement failure or configuration fault	Approved requirements and observed configured-test evidence; this page supplies no operating or recovery sequence
Other protected equipment	Every robot, handling device or auxiliary inside the protected area and the separate interface and safety owner for each	Cell-wide interface register showing that the IMM-to-external-device connection was not reused as proof for other equipment
Performance and validation basis	Applicable current requirements, risk-assessment result, safety-component evidence, validation owner and deviations	Qualified design and validation records; this page does not prescribe a performance level, distance, force, time or architecture
FAT and SAT evidence	Agreed functions and fault conditions available at each stage, exact test configuration, witnesses, observations, deviations and retest status	Signed configured-machine and final-installed-cell records tied to the approved validation plan
Handover and change control	Final schematics, instructions, validation index, open actions and recheck triggers for machine, guard, robot, control, software, layout or intended-use changes	As-built revision set with named owner, approval state and controlled change history

RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX

Assign evidence without silently transferring responsibility.

Contract scope decides who supplies each record. A website cannot appoint the legal manufacturer, integrator or validation owner.

Project roles, controlled records and assumptions to reject
Project role	Record its contracted evidence	Do not assume
Machine supplier	Configured machine safeguard boundary, interface availability and revision, controlled drawings, instructions and machine-side evidence	Responsibility for an external device, robot, final cell or destination decision unless the contract explicitly assigns and evidences it
External-device supplier	Identified guard/device configuration, instructions, interface data and component evidence for its contracted scope	Compatibility with the proposed machine or coverage of equipment outside the declared device boundary
Robot and auxiliary suppliers	Separate machine-to-machine safety and non-safety interfaces, equipment states and supplied documentation	Coverage by the IMM-to-external-device interface merely because equipment sits behind the same fence
Cell integrator	Final equipment boundary, interface coordination, applicable risk and validation work, deviations and as-built integration evidence	That a named recommendation or supplier declaration closes every final-cell responsibility
Buyer and destination site	Intended use, site layout, access, operating and maintenance context, responsible reviewers and required deliverables	That FAT evidence replaces final installed conditions, authorized procedures or destination obligations
Legal and conformity owner	Applicable regime, product/cell status, economic-operator and project-actor decisions, declarations and document-release route	That this technical interface checklist makes a legal classification or conformity decision

FAT / SAT / CHANGE CONTROL

Retain evidence for the configuration actually reviewed.

These are evidence gates, not a test procedure. Qualified parties define and perform the applicable risk assessment and validation.

Acceptance evidence and its publication boundary
Evidence gate	Record to retain	Boundary
Controlled-document match	Machine, external device, connector, circuit, software, layout and responsibility revisions agree with the intended test configuration.	Matching documents establish traceability, not safety performance, conformity or compatibility.
Configured functional evidence	The approved plan records the intended states, faults, reset/restart boundaries and observations available on the identified setup.	This page does not define the test method, acceptance values or actions used by the qualified validation team.
Other-equipment separation	Robot and auxiliary interfaces have their own records, owners and validation evidence rather than inheriting the external-device result.	EUROMAP 78 or 78.1 does not provide the separate signals for handling devices or other auxiliaries.
Final installed-cell evidence	The responsible parties retain the approved final layout, as-built interface, risk and validation records, deviations and signoff.	A factory observation cannot establish the final site's access conditions, legal status or operating controls.
Change release	Affected assessments and evidence are reopened after a relevant machine, device, robot, control, software, layout or intended-use change.	Previous evidence remains limited to the configuration and scope actually reviewed.

PRIMARY SOURCES / BOUNDARY

Use the exact interface document without transferring implementation or conformity.

Reviewed 31 July 2026. EUROMAP 78 and 78.1 define bounded external-device interface structures; ISO 20430 supplies the current public IMM safety-standard scope; ISO 10218-2 and EUROMAP 81 keep robot-cell and machine-to-machine responsibilities separate. None proves a NEW ORIENTAL IMM implementation, compliance, certification, safety performance, compatibility or completed validation.

EUROMAP

EUROMAP 78 Version 1.1 — IMM and External Safety Devices

The official recommendation defines an interface between an injection molding machine and an external safety device such as a door in a surrounding fence. It distinguishes device arrangements with and without guard locking.

Boundary: Its stated scope is the external-device connection covering hazards related to the IMM. It expressly does not cover the separate signals from the IMM to handling devices or other auxiliary equipment protected by that device, and it does not prove an installed implementation or complete cell validation.

EUROMAP

EUROMAP 78.1 Version 1.0 — External Safety Device with Double Acknowledgement

The official recommendation covers the corresponding external-device interface when the responsible project decision requires the double-acknowledgement arrangement described by the document.

Boundary: The page does not decide whether that arrangement is required, reproduce an implementation sequence, prescribe a performance level or authorize a retrofit. Applicability and validation remain configuration- and risk-assessment-specific.

EUROMAP

Technical Recommendations Catalogue

At the 31 July 2026 review, the official catalogue listed EUROMAP 78 Version 1.1 and EUROMAP 78.1 Version 1.0 and kept machine-to-machine safety interfaces as a separate recommendation family.

Boundary: A current catalogue listing identifies the document and version only. It is not evidence that a proposed machine or external device implements the recommendation or that the combination is safe or compatible.

ISO

ISO 20430:2020 — Injection Moulding Machines Safety Requirements

ISO states that Edition 1 was reviewed and confirmed in 2025 and remains current. Its public scope covers injection molding machines with hydraulic and/or electrical platen drives and their significant machine hazards through the stated lifecycle boundary.

Boundary: The public ISO page excludes mold design and exhaust-system design, listed other machinery and machines manufactured before publication. Publication status does not prove supplier conformity, certification, a completed risk assessment or the final integrated-cell result.

ISO

ISO 10218-2:2025 — Industrial Robot Applications and Robot Cells

The current Edition 2 scope covers integration, commissioning, operation, maintenance, decommissioning and disposal of industrial robot applications and cells, including integration of machines and components.

Boundary: It is an adjacent robot-cell reference, not the IMM product standard or proof of a project result. Its public scope lists excluded applications and hazards, including hazards related to processing material, and it does not replace case-specific integration and destination review.

EUROMAP

EUROMAP 81.1 and 81.2 Version 1.0 — Safety Signals Between Machines

EUROMAP's official publication notice separates a hardware safety-signal interface between two machines into parts for one or two separately treated safety devices, using an IMM and robot as an example.

Boundary: EUROMAP 81 is used only to separate machine-to-machine safety-signal scope from EUROMAP 78/78.1. It does not prove a configured robot interface, carry non-safety data or complete the cell risk assessment and validation.

BUYER QUESTIONS

External safety-device interface FAQ

The answers keep an interface recommendation separate from supplier capability, complete-cell validation and legal conformity.

01Is an 'EUROMAP 78 ready' quotation line enough?

No. Record the exact machine and device, recommendation/version, applicable arrangement, connector and controlled pinout, intended functions, normal/fault meanings, responsibility boundary and configured acceptance evidence. Keep every unconfirmed implementation detail open.

02Does this checklist choose EUROMAP 78 or EUROMAP 78.1?

No. The responsible machine, integration and risk-assessment parties must decide the applicable architecture from the actual access, presence-detection, machine and destination facts. The checklist records that decision and its source; it does not make it.

03Does EUROMAP 78 cover the robot and every auxiliary behind the fence?

No. The recommendation states that signals from the IMM to handling devices or other auxiliary equipment protected by the external device are outside its scope. Give each robot or auxiliary a separate interface, owner and validation record.

04Can a matching connector or pinout prove the cell is safe?

No. A connector record is one traceability layer. The configured functions, device behavior, machine state, access conditions, other equipment, risk assessment, validation, destination requirements and change control remain separate evidence.

05Does this page prove ISO 20430 or CE conformity?

No. ISO publication establishes the standard's status and public scope only. The separate EU document route records legal dates, product status, roles, declarations, marking and standards evidence. Neither citation nor this checklist proves supplier conformity or certification.

06What belongs in FAT and SAT for this interface?

Attach the approved requirements and validation plan, exact machine/device and control revisions, intended states and fault conditions, responsible witnesses, observations, deviations and retest status. Qualified parties define and execute the safe test method; this page supplies no operating, retrofit, bypass or recovery procedure.

RFQ / EXTERNAL SAFETY DEVICE

Send the exact boundary, endpoints and evidence requirements.

Attach the configured machine, external-device and layout records, interface document/version, responsibility matrix, approved validation basis, FAT/SAT evidence plan and change-control requirements. Keep every unconfirmed implementation or legal decision open.

Build the machine brief

An external guard interface needs a controlled boundary—not an “EUROMAP ready” label.

Release the interface without turning it into a safety claim.

Do not let one interface inherit the whole cell decision.

Fourteen fields turn an interface label into reviewable evidence.

Assign evidence without silently transferring responsibility.

Retain evidence for the configuration actually reviewed.

Use the exact interface document without transferring implementation or conformity.

EUROMAP 78 Version 1.1 — IMM and External Safety Devices

EUROMAP 78.1 Version 1.0 — External Safety Device with Double Acknowledgement

Technical Recommendations Catalogue

ISO 20430:2020 — Injection Moulding Machines Safety Requirements

ISO 10218-2:2025 — Industrial Robot Applications and Robot Cells

EUROMAP 81.1 and 81.2 Version 1.0 — Safety Signals Between Machines

Carry one released boundary into the wider procurement record.

Robot and handling-device interface

Machine interface register

EU CE documentation release

FAT and SAT acceptance

Cell utilities and installation

Mold protection

Machine selection guide

External safety-device interface FAQ

Send the exact boundary, endpoints and evidence requirements.